1. The case has not set any significant legal precedent – there have been no important new definitions, clarifications or qualifications of the law relating to candidates making false statements. The law now is still the same as the law looked to be before this case started.
2. Unless an MP was elected in 2010 (or by-election shortly before), any MP criticising the law under which Woolas was convicted is also an MP who had opportunities to change the law previously – and never suggested doing so in Parliament.
3. The Labour government introduced far more stringent rules to apply to local councillors about what they can or can’t say about other councillors or election candidates.
UPDATE: I should add to point (1) that there are some legal details and process points that the case has addressed and on which it is likely to be cited as precedent in future. However they are not about the central thrust of the law. I’ll blog more about them in the next few days.
Keep up with the latest news and analysis
about the Liberal Democrats with my
free monthly email newsletter.
I scour hundreds of blogs and dozens of media outlets for the best news and analysis - so you don't have to. It's completely free and you can leave the list at any time. So why not give it a try today?
You might also be interested in...

RT @markpack Blogged: Three things to remember about the Phil Woolas case – http://bit.ly/hWKoau
RT @markpack Blogged: Three things to remember about the Phil Woolas case – http://bit.ly/hWKoau